On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 12:21:54AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > And yes, none of these are overrides to paper over lintian bugs... :)
> I dunno, I could make the argument that several of those are lintian bugs. > *grin* > O: samba source: configure-generated-file-in-source debian/config.cache > If you put a config.cache file directly in the debian directory, you > probably know what you're doing and lintian shouldn't be warning about > it. That tag is designed to catch garbage mistakenly left around by > upstream. Exclusively for garbage left around by upstream? Surely if an autogenerated config.cache manages to get into the .diff.gz, that's also a bug (in the clean target) that should be fixed? Though yes, debian/config.cache doesn't fit this use case anyway so lintian could mechanically distinguish it, it just didn't seem worthwhile to me to suggest hard-coding of such a rare exception. > These: > O: samba source: configure-generated-file-in-source > packaging/Debian/debian-sarge/config.cache > O: samba source: configure-generated-file-in-source > packaging/Debian/debian-unstable/config.cache > O: samba source: configure-generated-file-in-source > packaging/Debian/debian-woody/config.cache > are harder, though, and probably are stuck with being overrides at least > for now. <nod> > O: winbind binary: no-shlibs-control-file lib/libnss_winbind.so.2 > O: winbind binary: no-shlibs-control-file lib/libnss_wins.so.2 > O: winbind binary: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames libnss-winbind2 > libnss-wins2 > The last one is, to my mind, a clear bug in lintian. nsswitch modules > shouldn't count as shared libraries for that tag; their SONAME is not > something you need to embed in the package name to ease transitions. > I thought we previously talked about shlibs for nsswitch modules in > debian-devel and decided it was a good idea or at least wouldn't hurt, and > libc6's *.shlibs file seems to back me up. So the first two might be > minor bugs in the package. Although I have no idea why anyone would ever > link directly against an nsswitch module and doing so is probably a bad > idea, so maybe not having a shlibs file for one is something lintian > should just swallow. I don't agree that nss_winbind and nss_wins should have shlibs; I for one don't intend to support anyone who's linking directly against the package, which clearly lacks any sort of soname support in the package name. > Either way, I don't think the first two should stay as lintian overrides. > Either nsswitch modules should have shlibs entries, in which case samba > should be modified (at a low priority, of course), or they shouldn't, in > which case lintian should shut up about it. But the only way to have lintian shut up about these would be by using some heuristic to identify NSS modules. Well, I suppose /lib/libnss_*.so* doesn't leave too much room for false negatives, after all... -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
